Scale Development Research

Worthington, Roger L.; Whittaker, Tiffany A.

doi:10.1177/0011000006288127

Cited by 2,456 publications

(1,003 citation statements)

References 63 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

906

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In relation to the data analysis, it was taken into consideration the recommendations suggested by Byrne (2001;, Hair, Black, Babin and Anderson (2014), Kahn (2006), Worthington and Whittaker (2006). Therefore, the confirmatory factor analysis was operationalized using maximum likelihood (ML).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Validation of the Goal Content for Exercise Questionnaire (GCEQ) for a sample of elderly Portuguese people

Antunes¹,

Couto²,

Monteiro³

et al. 2017

motricidade

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

According Sebire, Standage and Vansteenkiste (2008), goals contents (motives) are the major drivers of behavior, giving rise to the goal content theory, which is in the basis of Goal Content for Exercise Questionnaire (GCEQ: Sebire et al., 2008) development. So, the main goal of present study was to conduct the validation of GCEQ for a sample of Portuguese elderly (n = 311), with equal or higher ages than 60 years old (M = 68.53; DP = 6.69). The main results show us that CGEQ measurement model (5 factors, 20 items) only present adequate fit to data after the elimination of 3 items: S-Bχ²=219.9, df=109, p=.001, SRMR=.049, TLI=.916, CFI=.934, RMSEA=.057, RMSEA 90% CI=.046-.068, PCFI=.747). Besides that, the 5 factors show us acceptable values of composite reliability: between .76 and .88. Those findings allow us to conclude that GCEQ with 5 factors and 17 items can be used to measure goal content in a population of elderly Portuguese people in physical activity domain.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Validation of the Goal Content for Exercise Questionnaire (GCEQ) for a sample of elderly Portuguese people

Antunes¹,

Couto²,

Monteiro³

et al. 2017

motricidade

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Bold factor loadings meet the >.32 criterion for item retention (Worthington and Whittaker 2006) Joint Influence of Intra-and Inter-Team Learning…”

Section: Appendixmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…To measure inter-team learning, we selected items from the distal learning scale of Wong (2004) and the external activities scales of Bresman (2010). If necessary, items were adapted to the study context.We performed Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA, oblique rotation) on intra-and inter-team learning scales based on principal axis factoring (Schmitt 2011) and followed the criteria for item retention from Worthington and Whittaker (2006). Results showed a three-factor solution, in which adaptive intra-team learning, transformative intra-team learning and inter-team learning were distinguished.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The Joint Influence of Intra- and Inter-Team Learning Processes on Team Performance: A Constructive or Destructive Combination?

Bron

Endedijk

Veelen

et al. 2018

Vocations and Learning

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In order for teams to build a shared conception of their task, team learning is crucial. Benefits of intra-team learning have been demonstrated in numerous studies. However, teams do not operate in a vacuum, and interact with their environment to execute their tasks. Our knowledge of the added value of inter-team learning (team learning with external parties) is limited. Do both types of team learning compete over limited resources, or do they form a synergistic combination? We aim to shed light on the interplay between intra-and inter-team learning in relation to team performance, by including adaptive and transformative sub-processes of intra-team learning. A quantitative field study was conducted among 108 university teacher teams. The joint influence of intra-and inter-team learning as well as structural (task interdependence) and cultural (team efficacy) team characteristics on self-perceived and externally rated team performance were explored in a path model. The results showed that adaptive intra-team learning positively influenced self-perceived team performance, while transformative intra-team learning positively influenced externally rated team performance. Moreover, intra-team and inter-team learning were found to be both a constructive and a destructive combination. Adaptive intra-team learning combined with inter-team learning led to increased team performance, while transformative intra-team learning combined with inter-team learning hurt team performance. The findings demonstrate the importance of distinguishing between both the scope (intra-vs. inter-team) and the level (adaptive vs. transformative) of team learning in understanding team performance. Teamwork has become a self-evident aspect of work in organizations (Kozlowski and Ilgen 2006). By means of team learning, teams build a shared conception of their tasks and how to execute them, which is crucial for team performance: the degree to which teams reach or transcend their goals (Antoni and Hertel 2009; Van den Bossche et al. 2011). The first models on team learning mainly focussed on learning processes within the team (Edmondson 1999). While the importance of teams' external environment has been stressed in theoretical models (Decuyper et al. 2010;Kozlowski and Bell 2013), to date, empirical studies investigating both intra-team learning and inter-team learning simultaneously are scarce. As a result, insight in how inter-team learning and intrateam learning mutually influence team performance is still lacking, with some studies pointing to an added value of inter-team learning (Bresman 2010), while others demonstrate that inter-team learning forms an interference to team performance (Wong 2004). In the current study, we take an interactive approach and study how intra-team learning and inter-team learning may complement or compete over each other in their contribution to team performance.Team learning has been studied in a variety of professional contexts, for example among medical staff in healthcare (Timmermans et al. 2012), mil...

show abstract

“…Item 7 showed low cross-loadings on two different factors, and so this item too was omitted in the construction of the four factorbased scales (cf. Worthington & Whittaker, 2006). Descriptive statistics of the participants' scores on these scales, values of coefficient alpha, and correlation coefficients with their ratings of general satisfaction are shown in Table 3.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Validating the Course Experience Questionnaire in West Bengal higher secondary education

Chakrabarty

Richardson

Sen

2016

Studies in Educational Evaluation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

AcknowledgementsWe are grateful to the schools in West Bengal who provided access to their students.West Bengal 2 ABSTRACT The Course Experience Questionnaire (CEQ) is a 36-item instrument that is intended to measure six different aspects of students' perceptions of the academic quality of their programmes. It has been widely used in Western countries, and it has also been used in nonWestern countries, including China, Hong Kong, Japan and Pakistan. Nevertheless, in the latter countries, it has sometimes not been possible to identify the full range of constructs that were supposed to be measured by the original CEQ. We translated the CEQ into Bengali and administered this to 552 science students at 15 higher secondary schools in West Bengal, India. A confirmatory factor analysis found that their responses provided a poor fit to the original six-factor model of the CEQ. An exploratory factor analysis identified just four constructs, which reflected good teaching, generic skills, student support and appropriate workload. The items with salient loadings on the four factors were used to construct four scales. The students' scores on three of the four scales showed satisfactory levels of internal consistency. A factor analysis of their scores on all four scales yielded one overarching factor that could be interpreted as a measure of perceived academic quality. A reduced version of the CEQ consisting of the 30 items that constitute these four scales can be recommended as a measure of students' perceptions of the academic quality of programmes in West Bengal.

show abstract

Scale Development Research

Cited by 2,456 publications

References 63 publications

Validation of the Goal Content for Exercise Questionnaire (GCEQ) for a sample of elderly Portuguese people

Validation of the Goal Content for Exercise Questionnaire (GCEQ) for a sample of elderly Portuguese people

The Joint Influence of Intra- and Inter-Team Learning Processes on Team Performance: A Constructive or Destructive Combination?

Validating the Course Experience Questionnaire in West Bengal higher secondary education

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About